Video captured of dog being sent to death drops rescuer from adoption program, please write

Please note that some of these links no longer function due to elapsed time since incident; regarding alert, targets may no longer be applicable. (Our Compass received no communication or response following alert.)

Recently, however, that all changed following Logan expressing concern over the treatment of a surrendered dog, and what appears to be retaliation on the part of the animal shelter facility.

It all began on July 27 – the day that Logan witnessed a heartbreaking scene at the facility. On that day, Logan was at the facility to pull a dog for her rescue.

While there, she claims to have overheard a woman laughing and joking about a dog who she was surrendering. The woman allegedly was laughing as she told a friend that the dog was “(expletive) dumb,” and that she should abandon him in the parking lot.

Unfortunately for the dog, it is not the same story that she provided to the shelter staff.

The woman told the shelter employees that the dog was “aggressive,” and that he needed to be euthanized.

Later, Logan’s heart broke as she saw the “wheel or box of death” brought out to the parking lot. This “box” is for dogs who are to be destroyed.

The frightened dog seemed to know his fate as he bucked away from the contraption and attempted to keep his freedom. Logan captured part of the gut-wrenching scene on video.

The supposedly “aggressive” dog was clearly frightened, yet his tail continues to wag.

The “aggressive” dog never lashes out at anyone or anything – instead, he tries to keep away from the death cage. According to Logan, she witnessed the same dog wait for thirty minutes as the surrender paperwork was completed.

According to Logan, the dog never reacted to anyone or anything.

Haunted by the scene she had witnessed and perplexed as to why and how a young, healthy dog would be placed in the “death cage,” Logan contacted the shelter to see about the dog’s status.

She was told by the adoption coordinator that:

The dog you observed was being brought in by his owner to be euthanized. He had a history of aggressive behavior towards animals and humans. In this type of case the dog is immediately euthanized.

Logan immediately responded to the email asking if the shelter bothered to do a temperament test or otherwise evaluate the doomed dog – or, did they simply take the word of the woman who no longer wanted him.

Two days later, she received notice that she had “violated” shelter terms and that she would no longer be able to pull animals from the shelter for rescue; she could, however, still make a public adoption.

A portion of the correspondence received from Katie Ingram follows:

OC Animal Care is an open-admission shelter. When an owner makes
the difficult decision to surrender their animal, we will respect their wishes.
Adoption Partners should never interfere with this process. Due to the sensitive
nature of these situations, please ensure that you and others from your group
adhere to this policy.”

“I will assure that all representatives of the organization will not interfere with
shelter operations when visiting OC Animal Care.”

According to your Adoption Partner file, you were the representative that
signed the Adoption Partner Manual Agreement and the 2012 Adoption Partner
Application. Through your signature on these documents, you acknowledged
that you would adhere to all guidelines, including the previously noted
guidelines regarding owner surrenders.

After viewing both of the videos posted on You Tube, it is clear that your
actions are in violation of OC Animal Care’s Adoption Partner guidelines.

Sharon Logan was stunned and appalled and she immediately contacted her lawyer.

Though Ingram states that Logan “interfered” with the woman who was surrendering the dog, she did nothing more than capture video images – at no time did she interfere with the shelter’s operations.

Signage around the shelter facility does not indicate that photos and/or video images are prohibited.

Finally, the OC Animal Shelter appears to have violated the law with the immediate killing of the healthy, young dog.

According to Section 31754 of the Food and Agricultural code:

mandates that animals relinquished by their PURPORTED owners are to be held the same period as strays and provided the same vet care and treatment.

There is an exception to the hold time “if” aggressive behavior has been documented.

In other words, in writing, there must be evidence of documented aggression by the agency responsible for enforcing shelter animal laws.

The obvious reason for this is to prevent people from contriving stories to get rid of an animal which they no longer want.

Sharon Logan’s attorney has stated that the actions of the OC Animal Shelter appear to be both “retaliatory and punitive,” in nature.

At the very least, if they were unhappy with her 1) questioning the killing of the dog, and 2) videotaping the surrender – they should have given her written warning of their concerns.

I emailed the adoption coordinator on Thursday addressing these concerns and asking for a statement. As this article was being written, Katie Ingram responded to my inquiry.

Ingram stated that the shelter killed the dog based on a statement from the owner. She wrote:

Upon surrender, the owner notified our staff that the dog had a history of aggression with both people and animals. This information was documented on his file.

Ingram also stated that Logan was barred from the adoption partner program because she engaged the woman who surrendered the dog.

Logan informed me that, after the dog’s surrender was complete, she was angry and yelled to the woman that she had “sentenced her dog to death.”

While Logan’s statement to the woman may not have been the “right” thing to do, it is doubtful that, post surrender, it “interfered” with the operations of the facility.

A healthy, adult dog lost his life on July 27. The woman who surrendered him, for all intents and purposes, killed him outright with her words.

According to the information provided, the shelter facility did not evaluate the dog for signs of aggression.

From all appearances, they took the word of the woman who did not want the “dumb” dog anymore.

Sharon Logan is no longer an adoption partner at this facility. She captured a disturbing scene on video and voiced her concerns – now she can no longer help those in need.

According to Ingram, Logan’s drop from the adoption partner program is because of the following:

Whether we agree with the decision of an owner or not, we cannot authorize this behavior from our “partners” in these types of situations.

Logan intends to pursue legal action with her lawyer over this situation.

I am writing today on behalf of the dog who was innocently killed absent any legitimate assessment, resulting in the wrongful death of a dog and the dismissal of a responsible caretaker from the adoption partner program, Sharon Logan.

With respect to the owner, the woman’s words were not an accurate or reliable portrayal of the dog; indeed, it only served to victimize an innocent dog while neglecting to address those culpable: people who intentionally neglect their dogs or those who deliberately portray them as aggressive with violent behaviors relying only on words versus an accurate and complete assessment. Killing the dog absent a reliable assessment only propagates fear and irrational approaches to valid concerns. When you become immune to legitimate problems by unreasonably focusing on their owners description, the problem only escalates, allowing deviant human behaviours to flourish; when people start questioning the absence of enforcement and solution, you will determine that ignoring protocol is a fallible approach to controlling or preventing dog attacks.

For future situations, I appeal to you to allow the life of dogs, giving them time to acclimate and familiarize themselves with their surroundings. Even those dogs targeted as “dangerous” deserve time with a responsible caretaker. All dogs deserve life.

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copyHERE

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend.

TOO MANY PEOPLE WITH NOT AN OUNCE OF COMPASSION FOR THESE INNOCENT ANIMALS SO CRUELLY DUMPED AT KILL SHELTERS….I AM TRULY HEARTBROKEN TO SEE HEALTHY DOGS KILLED WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A KIND THOUGHT….it sometimes looks as if the Shelter Staff actually enjoy killing these dogs (and cats), as they give them such a short time to be rescued, fostered or adopted….this is the 21st Century and I’m really disgusted that the US Government still seems to show contempt for its’ Animal Welfare….Domestic, Farm AND Wildlife….GIVE THESE GENTLE, LOYAL AND VERY ADOPTABLE DOGS (AND CATS) A CHANCE OF LIVING FULL LIVES…..PLEASE STOP ALL THESE VILE KILLINGS AFTER DOGS AND CATS HAVE BEEN AT SHELTERS FOR JUST A FEW DAYS……the country is big enough to throw the Killing Shelters OUT and get more Dogs/Cats Homes (Protection Leagues), Rescues, Animal Sanctuaries etc. IN….come on America, let’s see some compassion for these poor unfortunate dogs and cats whose only crime was having rotten owners!!

This is the MOST ridiculous and upsetting thing ive ever heard! Why do so many people and organizations that claim to be in it for the animals always seem to do things to others when they too try to help animals? Is it ego? Sometimes i wonder! We are ALL in it for the animals,so why punish someone and keep them from helping more animals! People like at that shelter are the ones that makethe animal rights movement look bad! Sorry for the rant im just so pissed! I sent letter and shared on several sites youre the BEST Stacey!

OC Animal Shelter. You’ll never get a dime of donation from me and you people running the shelter should be ashamed of yourselves. You should pack up and close the shelter because it is obvious you guys are no where near an animal lover. Nor are you guys seeming interested in helping or saving animals. Why are you guys doing this and for what purpose? Shame on you OC Animal Shelter in California!!!

TO TAKE IN A DOG AND PUT IT DOWN ON THE SAY OF THE OWNER IS WRONG .THE DOG CLEARLY HAD NO PROBLEMS AND THE DISGUSTING OWNER ONLY PRETENDED THAT THE DOG WAS AGGRESIVE BECAUSE IT WASN’T ! WHAT A POS !! WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO DO ! HOW THESE PEOPLE WORK WITH ANIMALS I SHALL NEVER KNOW! TO WORK WITH ANIMALS (IN ANY WAY) THERE HAS TO BE QUALIFICATIONS !!!!!

This is disgusting and should not be allowed to happen again. Fire the staff. To the woman taking the videotape, why didn’t you try to stop it??? You are a dog rescuer, aren’t you?? Rescue the dog instead of videotaping it. No different than getting involved if you see someone abusing a dog. Sounds like she was more interested in posting the video showing the poor dog on his/her way to their execution.

if she heard the woman (who was surrending the dog) say what she said, why did she not go immediately and tell the shelter what she had heard, particularly when she knew they were putting the dog in the “death wagon” ….something about this is not ringing true.

Good, she has a lawyer. Please do use Section 1983, a federal law that was used by my step-brother, Sheldon, in his litigation against LA County DACC, in 2008, as he represented Nathan Winograd, Cathy Nguyen, and Rebecca Arvizu, and won the stipulated order against LA County Department of Animal “Care And” Control, ordering them to reinstate Cathy’s rescue rights at the shelter (and treat the animals right.)

Did you know you have the First Amendment right of the United States Constitution to speak out on what you encounter in shelters? There is no “waiver” that can strip you of your First Amendment rights.

“A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, best known simply as “Section 1983,” can and should be applied to stop and punish action by government officials or employees to retaliate against or obstruct an activist’s exercise of his or her First Amendment rights in speaking out against conditions in animal shelters.

There can be no dispute that complaining about abuses or violations of law at shelters is a constitutionally protected right. A rescuer has the First Amendment right to speak out against abuses and violations of law committed by a governmental entity, he or she also has a constitutionally protected right to demand that the government correct the wrongs that are identified.”

This sounds good Kat, I hope Sharon see’e this, it might help. It is a disgrace that this has happened at all. What sort of “shelter” is this? I know it doesn’t have a good rep (and I am in Tasmania, Australia!!!!!), but to strip Sharon of her right to save animals, all because she spoke out, is clearly a breach of her First Amendment rights in America! The staff OCACC need to be replaced urgently, this cannot continue, and Sharon and ALL Rescues need to be treated with respect, and their comments always considered. How DARE THEY kill that poor baby on the say so of someone, I don’t care if it was the owner. That baby had NO life, when he had a home, and you deprived of having one in the future. May you all rot in hell at OC!! R.I.P baby, I am so sorry those entrusted people, FAILED YOU!! 😦

I am no fan of shelters, but when you have a whole population of people who do not believe in spaying or neutering their pets and the pet overpopulation is becoming a tsunami, the shelters have no choice but to try to control the pet population. They are not in the business of saving dogs and cats. They are in the business of controlling the overpopulation of dogs and cats which is a problem created by the public.

I sat there for a half hour waiting for OC Shelter to bring me a dog Paw Protectors Rescue had rescued, I saw while the owner was at the Intake Window filling out the paperwork the owners friend standing by the entrance with this dog, he was sitting next to the owners friend waiting patiently, smiling and wagging his tail at the 50 or so people that walked by him and never reacted to the 20 or so dogs that came by in the half hour I sat there waiting for our dog Paw Protectors Rescue pulled! If there were signs of aggression this dog would of reacted, growled, lunged barked at the 50 strangers walking past or tried to go after the 20 or so dogs that walked past but he did not! What you saw on the video was the very tail end of what I managed to catch the 10 minutes prior, I watched them wheel out the box of death or wheel of death, he immediately jumped up into the arms of his owner’s friend that had been right by his side, she put him down and the OC Shelter staff tried to shove him into the box of death, he freaked out and they let him sit down and get calm, the dog managed to calm down, I witnessed this as I was walking our rescue dog to my car, I put the rescue dog into the car, came back and just stood and watch the scene unfold as they once again for the second time try to get the dog into the death trap, that’s when I took out my phone and started videotaping it was a 10 Minute ordeal to get the dog in there and I just caught the tail end!

As far as why I didn’t do anything, While this dog was being surrendered and I was waiting for an OC Worker to ring the dog that Paw Protectors Rescue rescued, Tammy the rescue coordinator came out , stood next to me and stated what a beautiful dog, I was told to keep quiet and not interfere, what I saw and witnessed that dog go through has taken a heavy emotional toll, I have been to almost every shelter from Southern California to Northern California and have seen sad, broken, hopeless dogs pleading with their eyes for help but what I witnessed that dog go through in 10 minutes, I will relive every day of my life, Paw Protectors Rescue’s Motto is We are their voice and their shield, I was not that dog’s voice or shield that day and that will haunt me for a long time!

This dog was immediately euthanized no chance for rescue, no chance for adoption, wheeled into the back in the wheel of death and destroyed minutes after the owner surrender! The cold and callous statement by the rescue coordinator: these videos can be received in the wrong way and it can cause people to get upset about something they can do nothing about. That’s their problem they think the rescues and people can do nothing about OC Shelter not adhering to the Hayden Act and destroying a healthy dog without ever doing a temp test, evaluation or even keeping the dog for the minimum hold because according to the OC Shelter people can do nothing about it! People we are their voice and their shield, we can do something!

Per Tammy Osborn Rescue Coordinator at OC Animal Shelter: Hi Sharon,

The dog you observed was being brought in by his owner to be euthanized. He had a history of aggressive behavior towards animals and humans. In this type of case the dog is immediately euthanized.

Our policies do not allow the filming of our employees, without their permission. Please try to refrain from taking these kind of videos and posting them. Without all the pertinent information being posted, these videos can be received in the wrong way and it can cause people to get upset about something they can do nothing about.

I agreed to adhere to this policy when Paw Protectors Rescue became a rescue partner with OC Animal Shelter! OC Animal Care is an open-admission shelter. When an owner makes
the difficult decision to surrender their animal, we will respect their wishes.
Adoption Partners should never interfere with this process. Due to the sensitive
nature of these situations, please ensure that you and others from your group
adhere to this policy.” When the owner told the worker at the intake window I want this dog euthanized, he is aggressive to humans and animals, the damage had been done, she gave her dog a death sentence! OC was not making this dog available or releasing the dog to any rescue! The only way I can help and contribute was to film the final minutes of this dog’s life, show how OC clearly violated the Hayden Act, post it and seek justice through an attorney and the court system to change OC Animal Shelter policy and procedures on immediate euthansia based on an owner surrender request! The legal battle will begin shortly. My heart is heavy with all the ones that were destroyed the same way at OC before this was brought to light and the ones that will continue to be destroyed until OC Animal Shelter can be held liable and accountable in a court of law and be forced and mandated to change it’s polices per Court Order! I am aware this goes on in every shelter across America, but this is the shelter that is 15 minutes from my home, this is the shelter I caught blatantly and outright getting ready to destroy a dog that had no signs of aggression based on the owner statement, this is the shelter that punished me for speaking out for a dog that could not, this is the shelter that think they are above the law or the laws set in place to protect the animals do not apply to them, this is shelter that the rescue coordinator states in a cold and callous email back to Paw Protectors Rescue: Without all the pertinent information being posted, these videos can be received in the wrong way and it can cause people to get upset about something they can do nothing about. This is the shelter stating per above that we as rescues or people can do nothing about what they did to this dog! OC Animal Shelter is wrong, We can do something it’s called effecting change responsibly and legally!

THis is an email straight from the OC Shelter to a concerned citizen in Canada that after seeing the above video of the dog that asked if there was a documented history of aggression on the above dog that was destroyed! There wouldn’t be any police reports as our local Police agencies refer individuals with animal related incidents directly to us. In California, physicians are required by law to report any treatment provided to a bite victim. We had received no reports of any kind regarding this dog. However, this does not mean that incidents of aggression may not have occurred, just that they have gone unreported.

Per California’s Food and Agriculture Code 17005, “…Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet,…” Additionally, if an owner makes claim that their animal has exhibited aggressive behavior towards a person or other animal in the past, it can be surrendered for the purpose of euthanasia, per our policy.

The documentation regarding aggressive behavior is noted in the comment section of the impound record as well as on the Animal Relinquishment Form signed and initialed by the owner. OC Animal Care will be reviewing the policy to determine if this is adequate documentation regarding reported and observed behavior. Kathy

Please note the above comment per OC Shelter: Additionally, if an owner makes claim that their animal has exhibited aggressive behavior towards a person or other animal in the past, it can be surrendered for the purpose of euthanasia, per our policy.
The dog can be destroyed per their policy, not what the Law or Hayden Act says but their policy? I got news for you Orange County Animal Shelter, the Shelter policy will be changed, a change is going to come!

Thank you for sending this but where is the documentation of any aggression both animal and/or human? There are no police reports or any documents from any medical practitioner saying that she bit or hurt anyone? From what I am reading this “owner” had her for four years, came to the shelter and said she was aggressive, there is nothing to document that she was. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A Comment on another thread from a concerned citizen that called OC Shelter on Friday: Kim Pruett I called this Shelter Friday and asked to speak to Ms. Ingram. Got the complete runaround. Finally got a Rita Gore on the phone and she said Ms Ingram could not come to the phone. I asked her if she knew the Shelters Policies and Procedures on euth when a doggie comes in as Owner Surrender. She really DID NOT KNOW! This is the case in Shelters across our Naion. I bet 90% do not even know their OWN Policies and Procedures for anything and make things up as they go along! Rita kept asking me what was the problem repeatedly, I told her “you know what the problem is” , you are killing innocent animals and then making excuses later and as Tax Paying Citizens we are no longer going to stand for this. Also, this dogs RECORD is PUBLIC RECORD, anyone can ask to see it unless a Civil Suit has been filed yet, then it will be “evidence”. EVERYONE REQUEST TO SEE THIS DOGS RECORD OF AGRESSION. 10 bucks says it does not exist, especially if the idiot owner had him for 4 years! EXCUSES, EXCUESES!

Per the Hayden Act a law put in place in California to protect the dogs from situation like these: Part of Hayden’s Law! They can not put a dog down based only on the word of the owner there has to be documented aggression from the Shelter, Police, Vet, Witnesses, Neighbors! What they did was against the law and illegal just because they have have done it in the past and will continue to break the law doesn’t mean they are above the law and should not be held accountable! Per the above comment, the “Shelter” worker does not even know the OC Shelter own policies and procedures let alone the Hayden Act or laws enacted pertaining to the euthanasia of dogs at the OC Shelter!!!

It clearly says
Existing law provides that no dog or cat impounded by a public
pound or specified shelter shall be killed before 72 hours have
elapsed from the time of impounding.

(l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society
officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable
methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to
determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded
animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to
notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and
any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the animal and,
upon the owner’s and caretaker’s initiation of recovery procedures,
retain custody of the animal for a reasonable period of time to allow
for completion of the recovery process. Efforts to locate or
contact the owner or caretaker and communications with persons
claiming to be the owner or caretaker shall be recorded and
maintained and be made available for public inspection.
SEC. 20. Section 599d is added to the Penal Code, to read:
599d. (a) It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal
should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.
Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or
older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or
otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a
behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety
risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet,
and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or
hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal
or that is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the
future.

(a) Except as provided in Section 17006, any animal
relinquished by the purported owner that is of a species impounded by
pounds or shelters shall be held for two full business days, not
including the day of impoundment. The animal shall be available for
owner redemption for the first day, not including the day of
impoundment, and shall be available for owner redemption or adoption
for the second day. After the second required day, the animal may be
held longer, killed, or relinquished to a nonprofit, as defined in
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal adoption
organization under the same conditions and circumstances provided for
stray dogs and cats in Sections 31108 and 31752.

(b) It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should
be euthanized. A treatable animal shall include any animal that is
not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable
efforts. This subdivision, by itself, shall not be the basis of
liability for damages regarding euthanasia.

The only thing I saw was a scared dog. And he had every right to be scared. I hate people like that woman who could willing give this animal up instead of looking at other options for him. And for the staff of this humane society, you didn’t even give this dog a chance. Is this really what you want to be known for, heartless, cold and ignorant. As for the woman who surrendered him.. you are nothing but white trash. And my name is Johnna Bingaman. I don’t feel the need to hide my idenity.

Not to mention the poor little animal looked very skinny. But from the looks of the fat ass that did this to him, looks to me you could skip a few meals. You are a cold and heartless individual who in my opinion should not be among society. I hope you are reading this.

I cannot believe that the owner stood there and watched this poor dog be treated like this…knowing SHE was responsible for his / her death, and this kind of handling. Why in the hell did this idiot owner not have the common sense to provide training and a decent life for this poor animal. if she could so callously stand by knowing that her lies are responsible for his obvious fear and death. …I sure hope she gets what comes her way , STUPID BRAINLESS, LYING BITCH. She probably treated this poor dog horribly when she had him… even a person with a heart of stone could not do this.

As for the shelter worker…how could they be so STUPID to not see this was fear…not aggression. The OC shelter obviously is hiring the bottom of the barrel of people to “care” for the animals. This person should not be allowed ANY WHERE near animals.. I would fire her fat ass if it has not already been done…and to take this issue right back to where the problem starts…PEOPLE !!! SPAY & NEUTER YOUR PETS… YOU are the problem..not the animals!!! ALSO if you cannot/ will not provide a loving home for an animals then don’t GET ONE!!! Find some other outlet to take your hostilities out on…like a punching bag .

There is nothing worse than a LIAR, A COWARD and a Person who goes out of their way to harm others…I hope karma catches up with both of these two LOSERS.

This is horrible and there is no reason for this brutality. This scared dog did not deserve this nasty and mean end. Shame on the person who gave the dog up and the people who did this to the dog. Shame on all of you!

Some individuals have NO HEART. By surrendering a pet to a shelter is a “Dead Sentence.” All animal shelters need to evaluate each pet behavior rather than taking the horrible owners word. This is the reason, I LOVE ANIMALS MORE THAN CERTAIN Unkind INDIVIDUALS!
“MANKIND OR KINDNESS OF MAN”

The so called HUMAN RACE can be EVIL!!! Don’t call people “animals,” DO NOT INSULT ANIMALS!

Great article. Thanks for shairng this. By the way, my boss needed form name several days ago and learned about an online service with a searchable forms database . If others are requiring CA Form 275-321 as well , here’s a http://goo.gl/tVUjK1